The U.S. Supreme Court considers a landmark legal battle over gun rights,
taking up for the first time in nearly 70 years whether Americans have the
right to keep and bear arms.

WASHINGTON, D.C., UNITED STATES (MARCH 18, 2008) (REUTERS) - The U.S. Supreme Court considered on Tuesday (March 18) what is
certain to become a landmark case over the highly charged issue of gun rights
-- the first such test of the 2nd Amendment in nearly 70 years. 
    The case, District of Columbia versus Heller, addresses the question of
whether the municipal government in the nation's capital has the right to
prohibit the possession of handguns by its citizens.  Beyond the narrow
confines of the local regulation, the case takes wider aim at the contentious
issue of whether the constitution affords Americans the broad right to bear
arms, or whether that right is restricted to "well-regulated
militias" as specified by the nation's founders.
    The court's ruling, expected by the end of June, could have a
far-reaching impact on gun control laws in the United States, estimated to
have the world's highest civilian gun ownership rate, and could become an
issue in the November election.
    Since the mid-1970s, Washington D.C. has banned the private possession
of handguns, and re
quired that rifles or shotguns kept at home be unloaded and
dissassembled or bound by a trigger lock.
    The law faced a barrage of skeptical questions from the U.S. Supreme
Court's conservatives.
    Chief Justice John Roberts asked Washington, D.C.'s lawyer, Walter
Dellinger, whether a total ban on gun possession could be construed as
reasonable, in light of the language of the constitution.
    Justice Samuel Alito, who like Roberts was appointed by President
George W. Bush, cited another provision requiring rifles or shotguns be kept
unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock, and said it did not seem
that a weapon in that condition could be used for the self-defence of one's
home.
    The highest U.S. court generally seemed supportive of the argument by
opponents of the law that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does
contain at least some form of an individual right to keep and bear arms.
    "As the mayor of the District of Columbia, more guns anywhere in
the District of Columbia is going to lead to more crime and that is why we
stand so steadfastly against any repeal of our handgun ban," said
Washington mayor Adrian Fenty.
    Clark Neily, the lawyer for plaintiff Dick Anthony Heller, said his
side was pleased with how the arguments in court went.
    "It's important to know, and I think the Supreme Court will
hopefully tell us, the constitution does not end at the borders of the
District of Columbia. The citizens of Washington, D.C. enjoy all of the
constitutional rights that every citizen enjoys, including the right to keep
and bear arms. We're very pleased with the way the arguments went today and we
look forward to the court's decision in June," he said.
    The case is widely viewed as one of the most important of the Supreme
Court's current term, along with cases on the rights of the Guantanamo Bay
prisoners, and the U.S. lethal injection method of execution.
    The hearing drew demonstrators on both side of the gun control
debate.
    "We believe that self-defence is a basic human right. We have a
right to life, therefore we have a right to defend our life and we have a
right to the means to do so," said Genie Jennings of gun rights group
'the Second Amendment Sisters'.
    "Well, I'm here because this is a very, very important day for the
issue that we've worked so hard on for gun violence and gun violence
prevention. These are laws that protect, if I could, you and your family and
we want to do everything we can to protect the right of local communities to
have the laws that they choose to have to reduce gun violence," said
Peter Hamm from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun control
organisation.
    The Supreme Court's last review of the Second Amendment came in a
five-page discussion in an opinion issued in 1939 that failed to resolve the
constitutional issue definitively.